Results for 3.2.2 20030109 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on s390-ibm-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jan 9 20:28:35 UTC 2003 Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.eh/terminate2.C Execution test XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test === g++ Summary === # of expected passes73

Results for 3.2.2 20030109 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on mips-mips-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jan 9 20:28:35 UTC 2003 Native configuration is mips-mips-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/debug/debug4.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/debug/debug4.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/debug/debug4.C (test for excess err

Results for 3.2.2 20030109 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jan 9 20:28:35 UTC 2003 Native configuration is mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/debug/debug4.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/debug/debug4.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/debug/debug4.C (test for exces

Results for 3.2.2 20030109 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jan 9 20:28:35 UTC 2003 Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test === g++ Summary === # of expected passes7333 # of unexpected successes

Results for 3.2.2 20030109 (Debian prerelease) testsuite on alpha-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jan 9 20:28:35 UTC 2003 Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu === libjava tests === Running target unix FAIL: StringBuffer_1 execution from source compiled test FAIL: StringBuffer_1 execution from bytecode->native test FAIL: StringBuffer_1 -O executi

Bug#176311: gcc-3.2: configure generated from broken libtool.m4

Package: gcc-3.2 Version: 1:3.2.2ds4-0pre5 Severity: grave The version of libtool used to build this source package is too old to correctly support shared libraries for the Debian mips and mipsel architectures. At least version (1.4.2-7) and higher correctly supports them. You need to update all

Bug#176196: Also segfaults on kernel 2.4.20 (default config)

(I have an Athlon XP, kernel 2.4.20 from XFS CVS SGI XFS CVS-2002-11-30_06:00_UTC with ACLs, quota, no debug enabled [In case the filesystem is responsible]) Versions: ii binutils 2.13.90.0.16-1 ii cpp-3.23.2.2-0pre5 ii gcc-3.2-base 3.2.2-0pre5 ii libc6 2.3.1-9 ii l

Bug#168086: target/9090: arm ICE with >= -O2; regression from 2.95

Synopsis: arm ICE with >= -O2; regression from 2.95 State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: rearnsha State-Changed-When: Sat Jan 11 09:04:58 2003 State-Changed-Why: The cause of PR 9090 comes from the fact that when we have (insn 127 126 128 1 0x40c653c8 (set (reg:SI 1

Bug#169689: marked as done (gcc-3.0: FTBFS: bison and glibc2.3 problems )

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:30:57 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line closing FTBFS reports for gcc-3.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your

Bug#161967: marked as done (gcc-3.0_1:3.0.4ds3-13(powerpc/unstable): FTBFS)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:30:57 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line closing FTBFS reports for gcc-3.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your

Bug#172878: marked as done (FTBFS: Build failure of gcc-3.0 on i386)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:30:57 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line closing FTBFS reports for gcc-3.0 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your

Bug#126411: marked as done (gcc-3.0: Improper warning when casting from pointer to non-const array to const)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:18:00 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Not a bug: Improper warning when casting from pointer to non-const array to const has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been de

Bug#176244: held back gcc-3.0 from testing until gcc (>= 3:3.2) hits testing

Package: gcc-3.0 Severity: serious Version: 1:3.0.4ds3-14 This version builds the libstdc++ runtime only (and for hppa the C compiler). Held it back, until the gcc-3.2 transition hits testing.

Processed: merge/reassign g++ reports

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 126703 g++-3.2 Bug#126703: g++-3.0: defines _GNU_SOURCE with g++-3.0 Bug reassigned from package `g++-3.0' to `g++-3.2'. > merge 126703 164872 Bug#126703: g++-3.0: defines _GNU_SOURCE with g++-3.0 Bug#164872: g++-3.2: Defines _GNU_SOURCE Mer

Bug#126411: c/9070: Improper warning when casting from pointer to non-const array to const

Synopsis: Improper warning when casting from pointer to non-const array to const State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: doko State-Changed-When: Sat Jan 11 03:16:55 2003 State-Changed-Why: not a bug http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9

Processed: gcc: submitted Debian report #176117 to gcc-gnats as PR optimization/9258

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > forwarded 176117 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug#176117: Internal compiler error in g77 3.2 Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > retitle 176117 [PR optimization/9258, 3.2/3.3, HEAD ok] Internal compiler > error in g77 Bug#1761

Bug#175468: marked as done (gcc-3.2: GCC 3.x should be the default C/C++ compiler on all arches)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:58:05 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line gcc-3.2 is the default compiler now. has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now yo

gcc-snapshot_20030110-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-snapshot_20030110-1.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030110-1.diff.gz gcc-snapshot_20030110-1.dsc to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030110-1.dsc gcc-snapshot_20030110-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030110-1_i386.deb gcc-snapshot

Processed: gcc: submitted Debian report #121269 to gcc-gnats as PR c/9209

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > forwarded 121269 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug#121269: [PR c/9209] cc allows dollars in identifiers by default on i386 but fails Forwarded-to-address changed from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > retitle 121269 [PR c/9209] On i386, gcc-3.0 allows $ in

Processed: reassign reports from gcc-3.0 to gcc-3.2

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 94701 gcc-3.2 Bug#94701: [fixed in 3.3] Duplicate loop conditions even with -Os Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.0' to `gcc-3.2'. > reassign 95318 gcc-3.2 Bug#95318: [fixed on 3.3/HEAD: PR optimization/2962] unnecessary cwtl Bug reassigned f

Bug#100722: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.1: PR preprocessor/3553] redundant error message from cpp)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:42 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#100722: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#172353: marked as done ([fixed in 3.2] Internal compiler error on alpha for objc)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#172353: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#140995: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1] -Wswitch (also part of -Wall) is broken)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#140995: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#140606: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.2.1] ICE in incomplete_type_error)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#140606: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#141900: marked as done ([fixed in gcj-3.1] compile breaks using temporary inner class instance)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#141900: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#156792: marked as done (gcj-3.0: alternatives handling leaves broken symlink)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#156792: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#165180: marked as done ([fixed in gij-3.2] missing libgcc1 dependency)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#165180: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#141899: marked as done ([fixed in gcj-3.1] locks up during .java->.class compilation)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#141899: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#167569: marked as done (SableCC does not execute properly)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#167569: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#150232: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1] Odd number in mke2fs output on HPPA)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#150232: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#146634: marked as done ([fixed in gij-wrapper-3.2] gij-wrapper-3.0 should understand -classpath parameter)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#146634: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#155900: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.2] nonstandard overloads in num_get facet)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#155900: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#107633: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.1] Error in std library headers)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:42 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#107633: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#119635: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.1] g++ Internal compiler error 19970302)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#119635: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#116128: marked as done ([fixed in gcj-3.1] FileWriter problems)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#116128: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#128026: marked as done ([fixed in libstdc++4] std::wcout does not perform encodi=)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#128026: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#127890: marked as done ([alpha, fixed in gcc-3.1] ICE in gen_subprogram_die 9463)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#127890: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#167673: marked as done (gij-3.0 ignores -jar when run as "java")

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#167673: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#137017: marked as done ([fixed in libstdc++4-dev] Included code for rope segment faults)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#137017: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#97904: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1, PR optimization/2963] pointless moving)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:46 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#97904: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is n

Bug#131399: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1, PR c/5597] Initialization of flexible char array member sefgaults)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#131399: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#105741: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1] gcc-3.0 misscompiles the Allegro library)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:42 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#105741: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#125649: marked as done ([fixed in 3.1] gij: Better error reporting on class not found)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#125649: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#123687: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1] internal compiler error)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#123687: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#102353: marked as done ([fixed in gcj-3.1, PR java/3492] -fno-bounds-check in combination with -W gives strange message)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:42 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#102353: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#144584: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.1] on ia64, internal compiler error with octave code)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#144584: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#144232: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.1] exception handling doesn't work with -O flags)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#144232: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#141902: marked as done ([fixed in gcj-3.1] default constructor for inner class causes broken bytecode)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#141902: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#164135: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.2] sin(a) * sin(b) gives wrong result)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#164135: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#127802: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1] use of mktemp is dangerous)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#127802: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#158371: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.2] internal compiler error in expand_end_loop with -O)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:45 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#158371: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#121636: marked as done ([fixed in gcj-3.1] ObjectInputStream.readObject() calls constructors)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:43 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#121636: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#134315: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.1] iostream.h does not like -fPIC)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#134315: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#137959: marked as done ([fixed in g77-3.1] blas: FTBFS: test failures on hppa)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#137959: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#135967: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.[12] ] unstable/arm: internal compile error during compiling lapack)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:44 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#135967: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#94974: marked as done ([fixed in gcj-3.1, PR java/2959] gcj-3.0 does not know that interface members are public by default)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:46 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#94974: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is n

Bug#108036: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1, PR other/3997, alpha] gcc generates ..ng references for static aliases)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:42 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#108036: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

Bug#173290: marked as done (gcj package does not provide gcj-wrapper-3.0)

Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:46 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#173290: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_sparc.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_sparc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_sparc.deb libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_sparc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_sparc.deb Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_hppa.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: cpp-3.0-doc_3.0.4-14_hppa.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/cpp-3.0-doc_3.0.4-14_hppa.deb cpp-3.0_3.0.4-14_hppa.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/cpp-3.0_3.0.4-14_hppa.deb gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_hppa.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_hppa.deb gcc-3.0-doc_3.0.4-14_hppa.deb to pool

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_m68k.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_m68k.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_m68k.deb libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_m68k.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_m68k.deb Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_ia64.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_ia64.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_ia64.deb libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_ia64.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_ia64.deb Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_alpha.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_alpha.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_alpha.deb libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_alpha.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_alpha.deb Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_arm.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_arm.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_arm.deb libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_arm.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_arm.deb Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_powerpc.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_powerpc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_powerpc.deb gcc-3.0-nof_3.0.4-14_powerpc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-nof_3.0.4-14_powerpc.deb libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_powerpc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_powerpc.deb Thank you for

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_s390.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_s390.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_s390.deb libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_s390.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_s390.deb Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

gcc-3.0 override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_i386.deb: priority is overridden from oldlibs to standard. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package

gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_i386.deb gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14.diff.gz gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14.dsc to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0_3.0.4ds3-14.dsc libstdc++3_3.0.4-14_i386.deb to pool/main/g/g

Re: FYI: bison-1.875 lets gcc bootstraps fail

> From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:56:07 +0100 > > objc-parse.y: conflicts: 31 shift/reduce, 1 reduce/reduce > objc-parse.y: expected 0 reduce/reduce conflicts Thanks for the bug report. This failure is due to two recent changes to Bison. The first one appear